Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:The Declaration of Independence disagrees with your position and supports theirs.

The Declaration also has no legal force.

That aside, the notion of god-given rights is either rhetoric or nonsense, and if you believe otherwise you are simply so misinformed as to make discussing anything approaching governance or politics with you absolutely futile.

edit: Given that I've been warned over this, I should clarify that the 'you' is general. I wasn't intending to insult biccat.

Again. Politeness is required. If people need a tutorial I suggest reviewing Kilkrazy's posts on how to make a point without being an ass.

biccat wrote:

Crom wrote:The Declaration of Independence was written by Adams, who was a deist. In his view God was a natural God, and a lot of people were coming to the new world because of the Glorious Revolution, which was all about religious persecution. I have read it, studied up on our forefathers, and it implies that 'their creator' means whatever god that individual believes in. It never cites religious text, or specifically says what God. It just says, 'Their Creator.'

It doesn't matter if Adams believed in Yahweh, Allah, Odin, or a "natural god." He sure as heck didn't believe in his own divinity. The point is that rights do not come from men, nor do they come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

If rights are given by men or documents, then they can be taken away. If our rights come from god (or a creator), then a government that takes them away is an illegitimate government.

You suggested that people who believe rights are God given are uneducated. The Declaration of Independence disagrees with your position and supports theirs.

You're more or less correct. Rights aren't given by man. Humans inherently have rights, due to being human. We can get into a debate on the religious views of the founders (far more complex than either side wants to admit), or we can focus on the core ideas.

Either way, the constitution is the contract between the people and the government. We give the federal government some power, with soem specific reservations.

Educating students that there are other world views should be criminilized. I mean there is only ever one acceptable world view and that is the right world view. That world view is my world view because I am right and you are wrong. In fact you are so incredibally wrong that I will ridicule you and demean your world view because your world view is just plain wrong. I know this becuase I am right and you are wrong. I have a ton of assumptions and presupositions to back up my obviously correct world view. I am not alone in my world view, in fact there are millions of people just like me, so again we are so obviously right that there really is no reason whatsoever to have a debate on other world views.

So yeah lets just not even allow the subject to be talked about in schools.

GG

p.s. Yaayyy for panera bread wifi!!

You just described most of the threads and posts in the OT.

And your panera bread is false! pumpernickle is the one true bread!

generalgrog wrote:So yeah lets just not even allow the subject to be talked about in schools.

Is creationism a scientific theory y/n

Does anything that isn't science belong in science class y/n

biccat wrote:

Crom wrote:The Declaration of Independence was written by Adams, who was a deist. In his view God was a natural God, and a lot of people were coming to the new world because of the Glorious Revolution, which was all about religious persecution. I have read it, studied up on our forefathers, and it implies that 'their creator' means whatever god that individual believes in. It never cites religious text, or specifically says what God. It just says, 'Their Creator.'

It doesn't matter if Adams believed in Yahweh, Allah, Odin, or a "natural god." He sure as heck didn't believe in his own divinity. The point is that rights do not come from men, nor do they come from the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

If rights are given by men or documents, then they can be taken away. If our rights come from god (or a creator), then a government that takes them away is an illegitimate government.

You suggested that people who believe rights are God given are uneducated. The Declaration of Independence disagrees with your position and supports theirs.

I am going to respectfully disagree with you. The Declaration of Independence while significant to the forming of the USA, is not a document which ensures rights. It also is the view of one man, Adams, and not that of the men that created our nation. You don't look up your rights in a religious text, you look them up in the constitution and the bill of rights. They aren't even listed in the Declaration of Independence. A lot of our founding fathers were deist and some of them atheist. Benjamin Franklin wasn't really a devout believer in religion. Furthermore, our founding fathers were stepping away form the archaic mandate of heaven type system where a King ruled with absolute power endowed from God. They knew God has nothing to do with government and that absolute power, endowed by a God absolutely corrupts.

Thus, rights are not God given, they are given by man. From a government made up of men, and put into office by voting of men. They also never once word our law in absolutes, instead it is up for interpretation. If rights were god given, and divine they would be cut and dry, and not up for debate or interpretation. On top of that, men would not have the abilities to amend such laws/rights and make changes. Things like the Patriot Act, that clearly violates the 4th in many cases would have never been passed.

God doesn't give you any rights. The men who created this country gave you your rights, and the people that run the country now either uphold or destroy those rights.

*EDIT*

From a deist point of view living sentient beings have inherent rights just for being alive. A natural order and rights to the universe. That the creator, whatever that God may be, has no influence or even desire or will to be in human's lives. It is like saying everyone has human rights to be alive, and to live in a non oppressive government. You are interpreting it as a religious thing, when in fact it has really very little to do with religion.

DAaddict wrote:I have an eye because randomly overtime the cells were developed to allow for sight. I know it is improbable but given billions of years, by random accident I developed sight, Two legs, opposable thumbs, olefactory nerves, lungs, kidneys, etc.

I have seen, read nor heard anything that makes evolution is fact. Merely that on some small or great level life adapts to its surroundings and rewards those adaptations that most successfully counter the adverse effects of environment. Those that don't adapt, tend to get penalized even to the point of extinction.

On that level I will accept Evolution.

Its not random.

Its not an accident.

It is the exact opposite.

Im not a Scientist, im a soldier that was pretty good at Science at school and read a few books about biology in my spare time because it was interesting.

But seriously mate, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you can tell my the words you use, "random accidents" is the stuff parroted by creationist preachers, not biology teachers in school and universities. Would one ever say anything was a "random accident" regarding the evolutionary process?

Look at it in this very simple way, I know jack gak about cars. I cant be bothered to learn, because im just not that into cars and my uncle Ian is a mechanic. So, whenever my car breaks, Ill take it to him to fix cos he is good with a spanner and he fixes them for me for cheap. I mean, I havent got the time or motivation to train for a few years to become a pro mechanic.

But heres the thing, when my car breaks, I dont take it to him and let him look at it for a bit, and then after he tells me what he needs to do to fix it start telling him how wrong he is because i read a magazine or I watched a guy on youtube say something about cars.

I listen to him, because he knows what he is doing.

Do that with Biologists, and see what they say.

Evolution is a proven fact is every sense of the word. As well supported as anything in Science. Im not mocking you or anything, I mean, Im a commando not a brainbox, all im saying is that because you havent got the inclination to spend alot of time educating yourself on the topic, you really shouldnt be expecting to know what your talking about. Make sense?

Trust the experts, its their job.

Proving scientific studies transparently against criticism and rigorous testing is a hallmark of the scientific process. If it can't withstand that then whats the point? But then again we're talking a class full of teenagers so there is no point really is there. Just lots of people with their own agendas.

All this conflict over like what half a day's lesson?
"Wow, bugs evolved through chance wherein the more survivable mutations -yes mutations you slack jawed mouthbreathers- had a higher chance of survival and thus bred more. Yea I thought that would wake you bunch of walking hormones. SInce you're awake now its time for a pop quiz. "

I swear I'd be the perfect teacher.

http://www.wgntv.com/videobeta/39d99dfc-0257-427f-9ffc-303d9f60faff/News/Teacher-remains-at-high-school-amidst-creationism-controversy
Well it ended well. For once.

generalgrog wrote:Educating students that there are other world views should be criminilized. I mean there is only ever one acceptable world view and that is the right world view. That world view is my world view because I am right and you are wrong. In fact you are so incredibally wrong that I will ridicule you and demean your world view because your world view is just plain wrong. I know this becuase I am right and you are wrong. I have a ton of assumptions and presupositions to back up my obviously correct world view. I am not alone in my world view, in fact there are millions of people just like me, so again we are so obviously right that there really is no reason whatsoever to have a debate on other world views.

So yeah lets just not even allow the subject to be talked about in schools.

mattyrm wrote:

DAaddict wrote:I have an eye because randomly overtime the cells were developed to allow for sight. I know it is improbable but given billions of years, by random accident I developed sight, Two legs, opposable thumbs, olefactory nerves, lungs, kidneys, etc.

I have seen, read nor heard anything that makes evolution is fact. Merely that on some small or great level life adapts to its surroundings and rewards those adaptations that most successfully counter the adverse effects of environment. Those that don't adapt, tend to get penalized even to the point of extinction.

On that level I will accept Evolution.

Its not random.

Its not an accident.

It is the exact opposite.

Im not a Scientist, im a soldier that was pretty good at Science at school and read a few books about biology in my spare time because it was interesting.

But seriously mate, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you can tell my the words you use, "random accidents" is the stuff parroted by creationist preachers, not biology teachers in school and universities. Would one ever say anything was a "random accident" regarding the evolutionary process?

Look at it in this very simple way, I know jack gak about cars. I cant be bothered to learn, because im just not that into cars and my uncle Ian is a mechanic. So, whenever my car breaks, Ill take it to him to fix cos he is good with a spanner and he fixes them for me for cheap. I mean, I havent got the time or motivation to train for a few years to become a pro mechanic.

But heres the thing, when my car breaks, I dont take it to him and let him look at it for a bit, and then after he tells me what he needs to do to fix it start telling him how wrong he is because i read a magazine or I watched a guy on youtube say something about cars.

I listen to him, because he knows what he is doing.

Do that with Biologists, and see what they say.

Evolution is a proven fact is every sense of the word. As well supported as anything in Science. Im not mocking you or anything, I mean, Im a commando not a brainbox, all im saying is that because you havent got the inclination to spend alot of time educating yourself on the topic, you really shouldnt be expecting to know what your talking about. Make sense?

Trust the experts, its their job.

Actually yea, back in ancient times it was taught that evolution is merely the amalgam of random chance, random mutation that creates a slightly more survivable animal that in turn has a higher chance of breeding and thus passing those traits on. Anything else would kind of require a design wouldn't it...

I feel so ignored :(

Frazzled wrote:Actually yea, back in ancient times it was taught that evolution is merely the amalgam of random chance, random mutation that creates a slightly more survivable animal that in turn has a higher chance of breeding and thus passing those traits on. Anything else would kind of require a design wouldn't it...

So... not random?

Since the bad mutations lead to the animal not surviving and all?

Ancient times? Like a couple of hundred years ago?

I think you're misunderstanding Matty, incidentally - he's not saying that there isn't any element of chance to evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:I feel so ignored :(

That's because you think it's good thing that the teacher kept his job, when really he should have been fired.


Both from his job, and from a cannon. Into the sea.

Asherian Command wrote:I feel so ignored :(

Don't worry. When you're married and a cash machine for teenagers you'll fondly remember these days.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Actually yea, back in ancient times it was taught that evolution is merely the amalgam of random chance, random mutation that creates a slightly more survivable animal that in turn has a higher chance of breeding and thus passing those traits on. Anything else would kind of require a design wouldn't it...

So... not random?

Since the bad mutations lead to the animal not surviving and all?

Opposite actually. Completely random chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:Ancient times? Like a couple of hundred years ago?

I think you're misunderstanding Matty, incidentally - he's not saying that there isn't any element of chance to evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:I feel so ignored :(

That's because you think it's good thing that the teacher kept his job, when really he should have been fired.


Both from his job, and from a cannon. Into the sea.

But but what about the coconuts?

Albatross wrote:Ancient times? Like a couple of hundred years ago?

I think you're misunderstanding Matty, incidentally - he's not saying that there isn't any element of chance to evolution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asherian Command wrote:I feel so ignored :(

That's because you think it's good thing that the teacher kept his job, when really he should have been fired.


Both from his job, and from a cannon. Into the sea.

Meh. He's not a scientist. ITs good because the guy has an entire family of five to feed.

Frazzled wrote:
Opposite actually. Completely random chance.

Actually, an incredibly long and complex series of improbable occurrences. It can't be totally random because each subsequent tiny mutation is dependent on the ones that preceded it.

It's not possible for a human to give birth to a seagull, for example.

mattyrm wrote:

DAaddict wrote:I have an eye because randomly overtime the cells were developed to allow for sight. I know it is improbable but given billions of years, by random accident I developed sight, Two legs, opposable thumbs, olefactory nerves, lungs, kidneys, etc.

I have seen, read nor heard anything that makes evolution is fact. Merely that on some small or great level life adapts to its surroundings and rewards those adaptations that most successfully counter the adverse effects of environment. Those that don't adapt, tend to get penalized even to the point of extinction.

On that level I will accept Evolution.

Its not random.

Its not an accident.

It is the exact opposite.

Im not a Scientist, im a soldier that was pretty good at Science at school and read a few books about biology in my spare time because it was interesting.

But seriously mate, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you can tell my the words you use, "random accidents" is the stuff parroted by creationist preachers, not biology teachers in school and universities. Would one ever say anything was a "random accident" regarding the evolutionary process?

Look at it in this very simple way, I know jack gak about cars. I cant be bothered to learn, because im just not that into cars and my uncle Ian is a mechanic. So, whenever my car breaks, Ill take it to him to fix cos he is good with a spanner and he fixes them for me for cheap. I mean, I havent got the time or motivation to train for a few years to become a pro mechanic.

But heres the thing, when my car breaks, I dont take it to him and let him look at it for a bit, and then after he tells me what he needs to do to fix it start telling him how wrong he is because i read a magazine or I watched a guy on youtube say something about cars.

I listen to him, because he knows what he is doing.

Do that with Biologists, and see what they say.

Evolution is a proven fact is every sense of the word. As well supported as anything in Science. Im not mocking you or anything, I mean, Im a commando not a brainbox, all im saying is that because you havent got the inclination to spend alot of time educating yourself on the topic, you really shouldnt be expecting to know what your talking about. Make sense?

Trust the experts, its their job.

Not mocking you either. But to say that all this occurred over the course of time is making it a matter of faith just like creationism.

I am not saying that on-going natural selection takes place. All the power to you.

To use your car metaphor - I turn the ignition and the car works - while over the course of time the parts may fall into place and voila I have a working car - I trust that some genius engineer built it - perhaps a mechanic juiced it up to meet his perceived needs. But I am not foolish enough to accept that my car - through the course of time just happened to fall together in some array.

Creationism - at its core is a belief in some engineer who designed something with a plan. Darwinism - evolotion - at its core is a belief that over time a combination of things will take place to result in some duplication of an engineer. In effect the engineer is time and the effects of environment.

All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved. You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link. By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason. I am not a lemming to roll off the cliff just because the weight of numbers is against me. If that were the case, we should be following the Ptolemaic Theory that everything revolves around the earth and still be holding slaves because the majority thought it was a good idea.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory. All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory. Where I get my dander up is when either side play a holier-than-thou attitude about I am right and you are wrong. Or a variation that evolution is the norm and because the majority accept it therefore it is right.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Opposite actually. Completely random chance.

Actually, an incredibly long and complex series of improbable occurrences. It can't be totally random because each subsequent tiny mutation is dependent on the ones that preceded it.

It's not possible for a human to give birth to a seagull, for example.

Now you're arguing for design. Look out Alby's a Jesus freak!

Chance on top of chance is still chance. The root cause of evolution is chance. Some are better most are not.

Now the fun part would be to tell them this"
"Yea you know that cancer thats going to kill off half of you in such a painful way that would make Torqemada puke? Hey thats evolution at work. Isn't it great? Now for another pop quiz." I so missed my calling didn't I.

Asherian Command wrote:Meh. He's not a scientist. ITs good because the guy has an entire family of five to feed.

The guy who would have filled his job almost certainly has a family too.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Opposite actually. Completely random chance.

Actually, an incredibly long and complex series of improbable occurrences. It can't be totally random because each subsequent tiny mutation is dependent on the ones that preceded it.

It's not possible for a human to give birth to a seagull, for example.

Give me about five minutes with a bottle of lube and we'll see about that, mister!

DAaddict wrote:By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason.

You know what else is a theory?

Gravity.

You know why it's [gravity and evolution] called a theory? Because it's the explanation for facts, not the facts themselves.

All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory.

It's only a theory in the same way that saying 'I think that this probably happened' is a theory. Evolution by natural selection has literally tonnes of evidence to back it up. It has been witnessed and documented in real-time. It's fact.

Thats all well and good but no one's explained why TRex's gave up eating coconuts. Whats the deal Darwin?

Frazzled wrote:Thats all well and good but no one's explained why TRex's gave up eating coconuts. Whats the deal Darwin?

T-Rex goes in, coconuts come out. Never a miscommunication.

Frazzled wrote:Actually yea, back in ancient times it was taught that evolution is merely the amalgam of random chance, random mutation that creates a slightly more survivable animal that in turn has a higher chance of breeding and thus passing those traits on. Anything else would kind of require a design wouldn't it...

It may seem silly now, but people were still arguing for the immutability of species, ie that the don't change over time at all but are fixed, as late at the 18th century.

For those who don't know why he was or will be put in jail is that a previous case has happened on the matter of creationism. In which it was found to not ba a scientific thoery, thus it can not be tought in a science class. Some have tried to teach something called intelligent design but was later found to be the same thing and also not allowed in the class. Both were denied in the class room because niether are or could be put under the definition of science. Which is simply any idea or theory that can be tested and challenged. Creationism dooesn't fit in this definition so it can't be qualitfied as science. It can be tought in a religous class yes, but not in a science class.

So to me it is as simple as this he broke the law, so he needs to go to jail.

DAaddict wrote:Not mocking you either. But to say that all this occurred over the course of time is making it a matter of faith just like creationism.

Not really. It's for lack of a better scientific idea. it's like in a cop show: no matter how weak your only suspect is, you follow up on it because what else you got?

All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved. You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link. By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason. I am not a lemming to roll off the cliff just because the weight of numbers is against me. If that were the case, we should be following the Ptolemaic Theory that everything revolves around the earth and still be holding slaves because the majority thought it was a good idea.

You can't prove a scientific theory. You can only disprove it. You can't do either to matters of faith, btw. The fact that you can disprove theories is why we no longer follow the Ptolemaic model. A better theory was presented, and it won out.

A theory is a tested and accepted hypothesis, while a scientific law is a relationship or function that is always true under the given conditions. Essentially, theories explain a why or how, laws explain a what.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory. All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory. Where I get my dander up is when either side play a holier-than-thou attitude about I am right and you are wrong. Or a variation that evolution is the norm and because the majority accept it therefore it is right.

Creationism is not a scientific theory. Not by any definition of the term. It's a possible explanation, but creationism is of little value to science. First, it cannot be tested. Second, it does not lead to interesting research.

In the world of science, evolution is a better theory than creationism, which is all that's required for it be accepted over it.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Opposite actually. Completely random chance.

Actually, an incredibly long and complex series of improbable occurrences. It can't be totally random because each subsequent tiny mutation is dependent on the ones that preceded it.

It's not possible for a human to give birth to a seagull, for example.

Now you're arguing for design. Look out Alby's a Jesus freak!

Chance on top of chance is still chance. The root cause of evolution is chance. Some are better most are not.

Are you joking or did you really not understand what I typed? How is anything that I said connected to an argument from design? I took issue with your use of the word 'random', because natural selection isn't 'random'. Think about it - you approach the kerb, you walk out into the road, you get hit by a car. Is this completely random? Does it happen by chance?

The answers to these two questions are not the same.

It's not completely random because the actions that both you and the driver of the car take directly precede the event of you being hit by the car, meaning that you have a set of possible outcomes, one of which takes place. Chance does play a part in the outcome because at every step you could change your actions and it would affect the outcome - you could choose to wait on the kerb and you would remain unharmed. However, you can't step out into the road and become an ice-cream. Nothing you have done up to that point makes that outcome possible.

Chance, yes. Totally random, no.

zxwarrior wrote:For those who don't know why he was or will be put in jail is that a previous case has happened on the matter of creationism. In which it was found to not ba a scientific thoery, thus it can not be tought in a science class. Some have tried to teach something called intelligent design but was later found to be the same thing and also not allowed in the class. Both were denied in the class room because niether are or could be put under the definition of science. Which is simply any idea or theory that can be tested and challenged. Creationism dooesn't fit in this definition so it can't be qualitfied as science. It can be tought in a religous class yes, but not in a science class.

So to me it is as simple as this he broke the law, so he needs to go to jail.

Wow if there would be a criminal offense maybe so. Please show me under what statute he potentially committed a criminal act.

Natural selection is random kind of like seven card stud is random. Nobody controls what cards (genes) they get. Some cards (genes) are better. The rules for determining which cards (genes) will win stay pretty consistent. The best cards (genes) don't always win.

Still, over time, the winning hands are going to contain far more of the better cards than the bad ones.